UCF will get a coach like Dee Quarles at South Carolina . That is the only person that would offer a job right away. I talked with people close to the ad and all the rumors of Burford Bailey at UT being asked is not true. They said they would not go after a power 5 coach they already knew was making insane money to depart UT. That rumor was cooked up by someone close to Burford Bailey so she could try to up value in New Ad’s eyes.

Wait...Tonja Buford Bailey is still at Texas?! I thought for sure she would have been fired for the article that was released about her and the AD trying to undermine Mario. I would have fired her 6 months ago!

I could see her taking UCF Head if she knows she’s likely gone after this year.

UserError

RE: 2018 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions12/30/2017 12:49PM - in reply to BigSkyGuy

So do they go with experience? How about Patty Ley if we are going the female coach rout as suggested by BigSkyGuy? Or maybe a up and coming guy from the NW? Tyler King, his older brother ran at EWU, or maybe Jake Hurysz, his name has been mentioned on the up and coming thread and is just a volunteer at Gonzaga?

Zags

RE: 2018 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions12/30/2017 2:17PM - in reply to UserError

So do they go with experience? How about Patty Ley if we are going the female coach rout as suggested by BigSkyGuy? Or maybe a up and coming guy from the NW? Tyler King, his older brother ran at EWU, or maybe Jake Hurysz, his name has been mentioned on the up and coming thread and is just a volunteer at Gonzaga?

Forgot about Patty when I first asked and then realized I had made that error. If she wanted it, she’d be an incredible candidate. I threw out the other names mostly in the case that Patty didn’t take the job.

FaceSnap Tweeting Instas

RE: 2018 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions12/31/2017 5:32AM - in reply to B Genie James

Thanks for the history lesson. So they are basically looking for a high school coach that doesn't mind being underpaid and doesn't fully understand how impossible it is to compete with 1 scholarship per gender. I'm sure they'll find plenty of people who think that sounds perfect.

What causes a school to only off offer about 1 scholarship per gender? Is that to offset another sport or they simply don't care to budget for it?

The Pope wrote:

Let me give you kids a history lesson on Creighton's last 20 years of coaches (the era for which they designated a "head XC coach" that wasn't an assistant basketball coach) for some perspective on what matters to them in the hiring process & what they want for that program. In the last two decades, Creighton has had five head coaches. One of those five had previous collegiate coaching experience. The others had been local club coaches with one or two having some previous high school coaching experience. Only one of those five coaches ever went on to got another job in collegiate coaching. The support level has remained relatively consistent in those 20 years. Just over 1 scholarship per gender. No paid assistants. No intent to add track. Used to pay under 30k (and part-time) until late 2000's. Probably still pays in the mid-30's for "at-will" employment. You kids do the algebra there of what they're likely looking for again...

Ok bro stop

RE: 2018 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions1/1/2018 7:12PM - in reply to Zags

So do they go with experience? How about Patty Ley if we are going the female coach rout as suggested by BigSkyGuy? Or maybe a up and coming guy from the NW? Tyler King, his older brother ran at EWU, or maybe Jake Hurysz, his name has been mentioned on the up and coming thread and is just a volunteer at Gonzaga?

Thanks for the history lesson. So they are basically looking for a high school coach that doesn't mind being underpaid and doesn't fully understand how impossible it is to compete with 1 scholarship per gender. I'm sure they'll find plenty of people who think that sounds perfect.

What causes a school to only off offer about 1 scholarship per gender? Is that to offset another sport or they simply don't care to budget for it?

The Pope wrote:

Let me give you kids a history lesson on Creighton's last 20 years of coaches (the era for which they designated a "head XC coach" that wasn't an assistant basketball coach) for some perspective on what matters to them in the hiring process & what they want for that program. In the last two decades, Creighton has had five head coaches. One of those five had previous collegiate coaching experience. The others had been local club coaches with one or two having some previous high school coaching experience. Only one of those five coaches ever went on to got another job in collegiate coaching. The support level has remained relatively consistent in those 20 years. Just over 1 scholarship per gender. No paid assistants. No intent to add track. Used to pay under 30k (and part-time) until late 2000's. Probably still pays in the mid-30's for "at-will" employment. You kids do the algebra there of what they're likely looking for again...

To qualify as DI, a school has to offer 50% of the total scholarships allowable between all the sports they sponsor. So let's say to keep things simple, a school sponsors basketball, soccer, XC & golf (I'm not even going to bother specifying the gender of those sports) - & let's say to keep it even more simple, each of those sports is allowed 5 scholarships per NCAA rules. That school would then have to offer 10 scholarships to those four sports to qualify as DI - but split up however they want (obviously Title IX will come into play here as well). Smaller mid-major universities like Creighton who want to be competitive in basketball & maybe a few other sports typically tier their athletic departments in terms of support. The top tier basically receive the means (and expectations) to compete...and the rest..enough just to barely field a team to meet other DI sport sponsorship minimums. In Creighton's case, XC obviously falls into the bottom tier - to which all the sports who fall into that category are evenly distributed the remaining scholarship required for the athletic department to remain DI. So let's say a school sponsors enough men's & women's sports that they all add up to 50 allowable scholarships between all the teams. Since this is a school that tiers their programs, let's say half the sports are fully funded & receive 40 of those scholarships. The second tier (still half the athletic department) then receive the remainder of those scholarships (10) split up among them. And there-in you have Creighton's situation...and a political (and somewhat budgetary) incentive not to increase that allotment ("but if we give you more, then we're going to have to give EVERYONE more!"). This structure also disincentives adding track because then you'd be raising the number of allowable scholarships for the men to go from 5 to 12.7 and for women from 6 to 18...not good if you're barely getting by with DI scholarship sponsoring rules as it is. And now it's also more obvious why schools like this love sponsoring XC without track...

whodatder

RE: 2018 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions1/2/2018 2:53PM - in reply to The Pope

Thanks for the history lesson. So they are basically looking for a high school coach that doesn't mind being underpaid and doesn't fully understand how impossible it is to compete with 1 scholarship per gender. I'm sure they'll find plenty of people who think that sounds perfect.

What causes a school to only off offer about 1 scholarship per gender? Is that to offset another sport or they simply don't care to budget for it?

The Pope wrote:

Let me give you kids a history lesson on Creighton's last 20 years of coaches (the era for which they designated a "head XC coach" that wasn't an assistant basketball coach) for some perspective on what matters to them in the hiring process & what they want for that program. In the last two decades, Creighton has had five head coaches. One of those five had previous collegiate coaching experience. The others had been local club coaches with one or two having some previous high school coaching experience. Only one of those five coaches ever went on to got another job in collegiate coaching. The support level has remained relatively consistent in those 20 years. Just over 1 scholarship per gender. No paid assistants. No intent to add track. Used to pay under 30k (and part-time) until late 2000's. Probably still pays in the mid-30's for "at-will" employment. You kids do the algebra there of what they're likely looking for again...

To qualify as DI, a school has to offer 50% of the total scholarships allowable between all the sports they sponsor. So let's say to keep things simple, a school sponsors basketball, soccer, XC & golf (I'm not even going to bother specifying the gender of those sports) - & let's say to keep it even more simple, each of those sports is allowed 5 scholarships per NCAA rules. That school would then have to offer 10 scholarships to those four sports to qualify as DI - but split up however they want (obviously Title IX will come into play here as well). Smaller mid-major universities like Creighton who want to be competitive in basketball & maybe a few other sports typically tier their athletic departments in terms of support. The top tier basically receive the means (and expectations) to compete...and the rest..enough just to barely field a team to meet other DI sport sponsorship minimums. In Creighton's case, XC obviously falls into the bottom tier - to which all the sports who fall into that category are evenly distributed the remaining scholarship required for the athletic department to remain DI. So let's say a school sponsors enough men's & women's sports that they all add up to 50 allowable scholarships between all the teams. Since this is a school that tiers their programs, let's say half the sports are fully funded & receive 40 of those scholarships. The second tier (still half the athletic department) then receive the remainder of those scholarships (10) split up among them. And there-in you have Creighton's situation...and a political (and somewhat budgetary) incentive not to increase that allotment ("but if we give you more, then we're going to have to give EVERYONE more!"). This structure also disincentives adding track because then you'd be raising the number of allowable scholarships for the men to go from 5 to 12.7 and for women from 6 to 18...not good if you're barely getting by with DI scholarship sponsoring rules as it is. And now it's also more obvious why schools like this love sponsoring XC without track...

Just realized there was a flaw in the math in my example lol. If the total permissible scholarships between all sports adds up to 50, then that school only has to fund 50% of those...so the requirement would be 25. For the sake of my example, lets say the top tier gets 20 of those scholarships...that means there are only 5 left over to distribute among the bottom tier sports. Whoops!

Sliding Scale

RE: 2018 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions1/2/2018 5:46PM - in reply to The Pope